Concerns with Turmoil Mechanics

[GNThrone]

Concerns with turmoil.


High upkeep systems are selected for turmoil if there is nothing undermined. Despite being able to fortify 55/56 systems last turn, we end up pushed deeper into deficit with the loss of income from Kwatsu and Kelin Samba.


(-653 predicted base CC last turn, -909 predicted base CC this turn).


The loss of income does not cover the gains from reduced overheads properly. Even if we shake off those three systems next turn, we will still be in turmoil with more new high profit systems being destabilized (HIP 105391 and Kalana are next candidates)


With this observation turmoil will be an endless cycle. Next turn, the deficit will increase (the gains from reduced overheads, 186.3 CC, is not enough to cover the income loss of ~368 CC from losing the 3 systems) until we drop to below 55 systems (55 systems is where overhead cost per system changes from exponential growth to linear growth). That's 3-4 weeks of turmoil from this turn if we continue to fortify everything at the same rate. Aisling Duval is stuck in turmoil for the next month. Aisling Duval is stuck in turmoil for the next month.

Essentially, we are in turmoil due to the horrible systems we have been picking up (intentionally or not) and not due to Undermining from other powers. Undermining kept us in turmoil from last week to this week but what got us into turmoil to begin with were those bad systems. This goes against the design frontier developments has been following (the reason changes to overheads were made - so that powers are punished due to hostile actions from other powers instead of for expanding too much)


Essentially, we are in turmoil due to the horrible systems we have been picking up (intentionally or not) and not due to Undermining from other powers. Undermining kept us in turmoil from last week to this week but what got us into turmoil to begin with were those bad systems. This goes against the design frontier developments has been following (the reason changes to overheads were made - so that powers are punished due to hostile actions from other powers instead of for expanding too much)


Suggested changes:
Turmoil systems should be selected in the order:

Updated (Aug 14 6:12 UTC)

1. All undermined systems
2. Highest upkeep unfortified systems
3. Lowest income canceled systems
4. Lowest income fortified systems

(Edit: This would now fit the argument that systems are losing faith in you when they go into turmoil. After all, unfortified or undermined systems would appropriately lose faith when they see that they don't get their sufficient supply of fortification materials. There's little reason for systems who do get enough fortification to lose faith because they're feeling the love in the form of, in our case, Aisling's programme materials)

Rationale:

1. If we do not get income nor pay upkeep for turmoil systems, then the net effect of turmoil systems (at 55 control systems or greater) is a reduction in CC. We lose the income, we don't pay upkeep, we still pay for overhead)
2. It doesn't make sense that we stand to lose systems we actually bothered to fortify even though they are cancelled. It makes more sense if an unfortified system is selected first (only if all systems are fortified then should selection dip into fortified systems)
3. The only way out of turmoil is to accumulate enough CC. We're already in CC deficit and the reduction will only keep us in deficit.
4. It makes more sense to shake off terrible systems in favor of good systems. This way, during preparation and expansion, it isn't too much of a headache 'accidentally' expanding into bad systems because they will eventually be shaken off if too many bad systems are taken.
5. Right now, there’s no way to effectively get rid of bad systems once they’re picked up. We have to live with them due to the current mechanics.

This is not a call for 'bailout'. It's a call for a mechanism to remove bad systems which push powers into Turmoil, all the while preventing the endless cycle of turmoil caused by those bad systems.


CMDR GNThrone.

 

[xDreadnoughtx]

Hmmm, not calling for a bailout? Touchy about that perception are we?

From where I'm standing, since it would allow your power to escape turmoil, I would say,well, that you are in fact asking for something that would, bail you out. No?

Anyway, I'm sure we will see all the usual moaning and subsequent "balancing". I much prefer " balancing" to the term "bailout". Don't you.

I would however wholeheartedly agree that PP needs a major overhaul and not just some stats/maths tinkering.

Atb

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I agree that there should be an easier way to get rid of "bad systems" (low income or even loss) without the need to fall into turmoil. However, I don't agree on the suggested changes that low income systems should fall into turmoil first. The selection is good as it is now. "Hit'em where it hurts."

Additionally, I doubt that it is only because of bad systems chosen for expansion. It is a result of drastically increased undermining assaults after Aisling was ranked first. Her followers were simply not prepared and continued to fortify the systems, resulting in approx. one half being cancelled and the other half fortified.


I keep an eye on some of the powers very carefully including Aisling Duval and Zachary Hudson as well as ALD, the Sirius company and Felicia Winters.

To compare: Winters was in turmoil as well and managed to get out of there. So this endless cycle you have mentioned is not true. It is possible to come out of turmoil and it requiers a significant amount of (coordinated) work in order to succeed.


But still, a major factor are bad systems, I still agree and I think there has to be a way to get rid of them.

I would suggest that per cycle, systems can be "voted" for to get rid of. To prevent overvoting from actual enemies pledged to a power, fortifaction has to be lower than the system's vote to shake off control. Basically the same with nomination. Vote for keeping a system and vote for removing a system.

Another solution would be to actively influence the CC income of systems by improving their economy for example. More citizens and a better industry increase CC income and so can turn bad systems into profitable ones.


But once again, by god, it is not impossible to get out of turmoil. There were powers before Aisling to fall into turmoil and they have managed to get out of that. I don't see the need to further reduce punishment for undermining.



(But a neutral palce to farm merits would be cool since undermined systems are not the result of corrdianted attacks but more because of senseless merit farming).

PS: Oh, and make solo and group mode having no influence on PowerPlay. The players still get all the merits but do not influence fortifaction or undermining in systems. Nomination still works ofcourse. The aim is to make a blockade in open and the need to defend systems actually useful.


Cheers.

 

[GNThrone]

Hmmm, not calling for a bailout? Touchy about that perception are we?

From where I'm standing, since it would allow your power to escape turmoil, I would say,well, that you are in fact asking for something that would, bail you out. No?

Anyway, I'm sure we will see all the usual moaning and subsequent "balancing". I much prefer " balancing" to the term "bailout". Don't you.

I would however wholeheartedly agree that PP needs a major overhaul and not just some stats/maths tinkering.

Atb

No, we would still remain in turmoil even if the changes are introduced.

Fun facts:

The maximum CC we can achieve (no undermining/cancelations) is 544 CC
The maximum CC we can achieve if the same systems from last week are undermined is -153 CC
The maximum CC we can achieve if the same systems from last week and our new systems are undermined is -253 CC.
We're bound to remain in turmoil even after this week. That would result in two more systems being picked for turmoil incurring an additional loss of 259/292 CC which is still net negative if we account for the gains from overhead reductions (186.3 CC) resulting in the said net negative of 72.7/105.7 CC pushing our base CC of -909 even lower to -982/-1015 CC.
That cycle would repeat until we reach control systems less than 55 where gains from overhead reductions would increase for any more loss.
We have 61 control systems now, 58 next turn, 56 the next, 54 the next. That's a month of turmoil.
And when we do get out of turmoil, it will probably only take a single turn or two to dip us back into it with 5-10 additional systems to expand. Most of which would be horrible systems. That much is unavoidable fact taken from experience playing Powerplay for 9 weeks and 4 days.
We will end up losing our high profit systems and keep (and increase our horrible systems). All because we have no real means to get rid of our horrible systems (they have a high undermining requirement making it more troublesome to get rid off using unconventional strategies).

This can happen to any other power given enough bad systems.

 

[Cmdr Noast]

hi guys

what would interest me most , due to the fact of poor documentation and my poor understanding of english

how can my group achieve that enemy systems fall into turmoil ?
and if they do how van i qonquer this system in PP ?

please enlighten me on this subject





fly safe cmdrs

 

[smiths121]

Hi All,

I think Aisling will be in turmoil a little longer than Winters. The expansion has not been optimal, and that will take time to undo - which I think is what the OP sees. I blame the comparative lack of opposition and the blue hair for attractive an disproportional number of merit farmers.

To get out of the mess and to modify behaviour, need to get the plans executed and communicate in game.

Towards the end of the cycle, need pickets in the systems that should not be fortified .... with guns if necessary (does same power on power get wanted?) and cheerleaders telling ships where to go (i.e. based on ship where they need to fortify). Only then if there is time start messaging for expansion and then preparation.

I do not think we need a rules change, I think we need to get organised and change the behaviour of the merit farmers.

Oh, I joined Aisling this cycle, and did not do too much as my other character had an Election to "affect", so feel free to ignore me.....

I think I will be on tonight though, more merits to be made early in the cycle.

Simon

 

[Crimson Kaim]

But Aisling DUval is currently the only faction being in turmoil twice in a row. I still don't see the need for a change just because of one single power.

 

[GNThrone]

But Aisling DUval is currently the only faction being in turmoil twice in a row. I still don't see the need for a change just because of one single power.

The negative feedback is real. Even if we're just one power. The possibility for it to happen to other powers is also real.

Hi All,

I think Aisling will be in turmoil a little longer than Winters. The expansion has not been optimal, and that will take time to undo - which I think is what the OP sees. I blame the comparative lack of opposition and the blue hair for attractive an disproportional number of merit farmers.

To get out of the mess and to modify behaviour, need to get the plans executed and communicate in game.

Towards the end of the cycle, need pickets in the systems that should not be fortified .... with guns if necessary (does same power on power get wanted?) and cheerleaders telling ships where to go (i.e. based on ship where they need to fortify). Only then if there is time start messaging for expansion and then preparation.

I do not think we need a rules change, I think we need to get organised and change the behaviour of the merit farmers.

Simon

At this point, unless for some miraculous reason, all Aisling supporters are on the same page, we cannot avoid that month long turmoil. That entails not fortifying low profit systems and waiting for other powers to undermine them. Getting rid of our bad systems is too much outside of our control.

 

[mnyiaa]

Yes, bad systems are horrible, and the fact that we can't control the way we select new systems as we are at the mercy of a possible larger players base that isn't aware of any higher strategy is all the DEVs fault for not giving us a better method, or unwillingness to make the Nomination Commendations act as voting for YES and NO regarding new systems.

However, we all have the same core game and we all deal with these issues, and Aisling landed in this hole by her own doing. She received a ton of undermining and that is what sent her over. Other powers got out of theirs.

I am just one player, but if another bailout is given in this PP I will quit this stupid thing. I am not against fixing this, but people only complain when they are in the shift.
How about addressing the fact that you are in turmoil for a 2nd turn and still have 3 systems that aren't in revolt, or that your stats show you gained 3 systems.

That said, the fact that we can't choose which systems to cut loose and which to keep is pathetically stupid as this would be a valid option in real life. If this business isn't bringing anything useful to me, why should I invest in it.



SUGGESTION: How about forming contracts with systems. If a system shows promise you can sign a contract with that system that lasts X weeks. If that system loses profit during your contract or produces nothing due to undermining(zero fortifying) then you can't cut it loose until your contract is over.

Honestly, most of us can come up with really goo ideas to improve this system, but this bit for bit editing of the numbers and values have only caused hatred. This PP system is even harder to keep track of than the rest of the game.
Nevertheless, to the trashcan with your bailout.

- - - Updated - - -

The negative feedback is real. Even if we're just one power. The possibility for it to happen to other powers is also real.



At this point, unless for some miraculous reason, all Aisling supporters are on the same page, we cannot avoid that month long turmoil. That entails not fortifying low profit systems and waiting for other powers to undermine them. Getting rid of our bad systems is too much outside of our control.

The thought is/was that once you are in super turmoil you will lose many systems at once, but it seems that the DEVs have limit that to 3, the high valued ones, and that on a economical/business perspective is crazy. I agree with that, but we all faced the same odds.

 

[smiths121]

Hello GNThrone,

Your right, comms tools are horrible, our cost base is too high for income, and it is hard to see past continuous turmoil. Well that is where we are.

Things we can do:

Everything is based around organising, we only have communicaiotn tools we have, not all being used. I do not think there was a cycle 10 thread on this forum last cycle for example. I mentioned doing it ingame. Joining last week and broadcasting "hello new, what can I do to help" in the HQ to silence really does not help either. Hence my comments

Some other things we can do off the top of my head:

1) some of join another power close by and undermine the ones we want ourselves. For people like me starting out can then defect back, although need more than my Cobra!
2) People from (1) can also picket those systems and encourage supporters to fortify somewhere else.
3) Cheerleaders of the message in HQ middle to end of cycle, or when we detect things going wrong.
3) Use all communication forms, as PP updates keep on message about what to do, also explain what is going wrong and the results.

Get all timezones covered in (1) is a start. There is nothing we can do about people not bothering with the plan in solo, so ignore the variable and focus on what we can do.

Simon

The negative feedback is real. Even if we're just one power. The possibility for it to happen to other powers is also real.



At this point, unless for some miraculous reason, all Aisling supporters are on the same page, we cannot avoid that month long turmoil. That entails not fortifying low profit systems and waiting for other powers to undermine them. Getting rid of our bad systems is too much outside of our control.

 

[h347h]

Sounds more like they need a way to combat 5th column gameplay. I know a few people who expressly try and do it to princess space bubblegum as much as they can.

 

[GNThrone]

Yes, bad systems are horrible, and the fact that we can't control the way we select new systems as we are at the mercy of a possible larger players base that isn't aware of any higher strategy is all the DEVs fault for not giving us a better method, or unwillingness to make the Nomination Commendations act as voting for YES and NO regarding new systems.

However, we all have the same core game and we all deal with these issues, and Aisling landed in this hole by her own doing. She received a ton of undermining and that is what sent her over. Other powers got out of theirs.

I am just one player, but if another bailout is given in this PP I will quit this stupid thing.

Again, the changes I'm proposing is not a bailout. Aisling will still be in turmoil. The only difference will be in the selection of systems to be lost. Losing high profit systems on top of turmoil will only serve to push the power deeper into turmoil. By prioritizing selection of low income systems over high upkeep systems, we will not magically get out of turmoil. Instead of losing more profit pushing us deeper into deficit, we will lose the horrible systems that caused the deficit in the first place.

 

[Gswine]

But Aisling Duval is currently the only faction being in turmoil twice in a row. I still don't want to see another Imperial Power benefiting from yet another FD workaround.

Fixed it for you

Anyway what would it matter if FD actually altered things again? Last time they said they had, it didn't actually take.

Quote from Powerplay cycle results:

"In addition, we’re taking a look at player action availability, to reduce the chance of Commanders unwittingly sabotaging their own power:
Currently, when a power falls into a CC deficit, although new preparation is halted, expansion still takes place for successful preparation from the previous cycle. This drives the power deeper into deficit, which is compounded by overhead costs.
So we’re going to gate expansion behind a CC wall: we’re going to prevent expansion taking place when a power is in deficit, and we’re going to prevent expansion succeeding if ownership of the system would push the powerinto deficit."

After all Aisling had 5 expansions on the go while in turmoil, three of these have been successful, entering Control and now Aisling have a larger deficit than last turn.

Looks like someone from FD has to go through the data and see what's going on. Could be why Cadoc can't get a look at it right now maybe?

- - - Updated - - -

Hello GNThrone,

Your right, comms tools are horrible, our cost base is too high for income, and it is hard to see past continuous turmoil. Well that is where we are.

Things we can do:

Everything is based around organising, we only have communicaiotn tools we have, not all being used. I do not think there was a cycle 10 thread on this forum last cycle for example. I mentioned doing it ingame. Joining last week and broadcasting "hello new, what can I do to help" in the HQ to silence really does not help either. Hence my comments

Some other things we can do off the top of my head:

1) some of join another power close by and undermine the ones we want ourselves. For people like me starting out can then defect back, although need more than my Cobra!
2) People from (1) can also picket those systems and encourage supporters to fortify somewhere else.
3) Cheerleaders of the message in HQ middle to end of cycle, or when we detect things going wrong.
3) Use all communication forms, as PP updates keep on message about what to do, also explain what is going wrong and the results.

Get all timezones covered in (1) is a start. There is nothing we can do about people not bothering with the plan in solo, so ignore the variable and focus on what we can do.

Simon

You have to be trolling. I mean, you have to be trolling.

@gnthrone

He has to be, isn't he? Must be.

 

[smiths121]

Not trolling. Why do you think I am trolling?

Is than a plan that will improve the situation? Yes.
Is communication from those with a plan to those executing? No.


You can either try to change the above, beg from help from FD or give up.


Simon

Fixed it for you

Anyway what would it matter if FD actually altered things again? Last time they said they had, it didn't actually take.

Quote from Powerplay cycle results:

"In addition, we’re taking a look at player action availability, to reduce the chance of Commanders unwittingly sabotaging their own power:
Currently, when a power falls into a CC deficit, although new preparation is halted, expansion still takes place for successful preparation from the previous cycle. This drives the power deeper into deficit, which is compounded by overhead costs.
So we’re going to gate expansion behind a CC wall: we’re going to prevent expansion taking place when a power is in deficit, and we’re going to prevent expansion succeeding if ownership of the system would push the powerinto deficit."

After all Aisling had 5 expansions on the go while in turmoil, three of these have been successful, entering Control and now Aisling have a larger deficit than last turn.

Looks like someone from FD has to go through the data and see what's going on. Could be why Cadoc can't get a look at it right now maybe?

- - - Updated - - -



You have to be trolling. I mean, you have to be trolling.

@gnthrone

He has to be, isn't he? Must be.

 

[Saool]

I'm more interested in how and why you got off so lightly:

- You still have a system that was in turmoil last week and yet you are still in turmoil now
- You have expansions despite being in turmoil
- You only have 3 systems in turmoil as opposed to all of them (there may be a limit on 3, as all would be a bit crazy, but this is not listed anywhere)

 

[Arry]

My issue is how can you have results when players have not been able to deliver. There are a number of players that have reported delivery issues over the last week. The way it looks, is it does not matter if the mechanics are not working, it does not matter if you try to work with the faulty 'programming' and you can't deliver to sort out any turmoil issues. The results still stand, in spite the fact that players have done all they can to change things. This will drive players away from power play in droves.

 

[Martin Schou]

Actually Torval is getting off easy this cycle as well.

Torval only has three systems in turmoil, but the three systems in turmoil in no way manage to cover the CC deficit that she's facing. Torval should have a good deal of other systems in turmoil, just like Aisling should.

But Aisling is the only one who has been allowed to keep a system that was in turmoil for two weeks straight. Seriously - the claim that Aisling is being hit hard by this is either naïve or disingenuous.

 

[Arry]

Actually Torval is getting off easy this cycle as well.

Torval only has three systems in turmoil, but the three systems in turmoil in no way manage to cover the CC deficit that she's facing. Torval should have a good deal of other systems in turmoil, just like Aisling should.

But Aisling is the only one who has been allowed to keep a system that was in turmoil for two weeks straight. Seriously - the claim that Aisling is being hit hard by this is either naïve or disingenuous.

The system in question, we have NOT BEEN ABLE TO DELIVER THERE! GET IT?

 

[Kigre]

Some people call it Powerplay, i call it "Merit collection."
Just give me that bonus!

 

[Arry]

Some people call it Powerplay, i call it "Merit collection."
Just give me that bonus!

That is the point: With the 'bugs' or issues with failed deliveries etc, anyone still involved in power play, is just going to dump and run, just to build their merit total, if there is no point in doing the right thing due to programming errors.